Fudo Manu Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but I can' find it. How would you responed to this counter argument to society being a concept? "Kevin, you're not really Kevin but actually a grouping of different individual cells. Certainly your cells could be included within the concept of you, but when we are talking about your rights the only thing we can look at are the rights of the cells which the concept of "you" is used to describe. You exist as a concept, and don't exist in reality; only individual cells do." I'm having a hard time with that.
Wesley Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 This may be over-simplifying, but the individual cells would cease to be alive if they were separated from you, thus that is what makes you a "self" as as long as the vast majority of your cells stay attached in their current configuration (with a steady loss/gain of new cells) then you remain alive.
Fudo Manu Posted November 12, 2013 Author Posted November 12, 2013 Wouldn't you be able to progress that upward to society? The individual would die without society and society would die without individuals.
Wesley Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Well I could survive without a society. That's what the theoretical "living in the woods" would be. However, my arm cannot survive without my body.
Kevin Beal Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 There is something irreducible about being human as a result of certain emergent phenomena. Our cells (for example) can't maintain a conversation, or make informed decisions, our atoms don't have color or liquidity. A society on the other hand gains no emergent phenomena that is distinctly separate from it's individuals. Society doesn't turn purple as soon as more than 500 people compose it. So while you can't touch a society without touching a person, you can't can't touch a person without touching their cells, tissues, atoms etc. The difference is that emergent phenomena that makes a human are different than all of the elements that make up a human squished together in some twisted lab experiment. Hopefully that makes some sense.
Stephen C Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 You exist as a concept, and don't exist in reality; only individual cells do. I would ask this person "what would happen if you went to talk to your parents about your feelings?"
TheRobin Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 A society on the other hand gains no emergent phenomena that is distinctly separate from it's individuals. After seeing the movie "I, Pencil" I'd heavily disagree with that statement. A society of people can make tons of stuff that no single individual could ever produce. So why wouldn't that count as an emergent property?In regards to the OP I'd also say that stating that society is a concpet isn't really an argument for or against anything. Every word you'll ever use is a concept, but so what? To me that's like saying society is a noun with seven letters. It doesn't have anything to do with describing reality and shifts the conversation from using language to describe reality to using language to describe language itself.
Kevin Beal Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 After seeing the movie "I, Pencil" I'd heavily disagree with that statement. A society of people can make tons of stuff that no single individual could ever produce. So why wouldn't that count as an emergent property? I guess you're right. I hadn't thought of that... Good point
Guest - Josh - Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but I can' find it. How would you responed to this counter argument to society being a concept? "Kevin, you're not really Kevin but actually a grouping of different individual cells. Certainly your cells could be included within the concept of you, but when we are talking about your rights the only thing we can look at are the rights of the cells which the concept of "you" is used to describe. You exist as a concept, and don't exist in reality; only individual cells do." I'm having a hard time with that. The self is just like software, programmed by the hardware and open to adaptation by the environment. Sure the self doesn't exist in a concrete sense apart from signals interacting with each other, but so what? Hurricanes are only a semblance of air molecules, but no one in their right minds say that hurricanes don't exist -- look at the damage they cause. Of course without a mind to distinguish and categorize, everything is just energy and matter... but they would still be organized in different ways whether we were here to observe or not.
LovePrevails Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 I would ask this person "what would happen if you went to talk to your parents about your feelings?" +1 Stephen, always super dry
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but I can' find it. How would you responed to this counter argument to society being a concept? "Kevin, you're not really Kevin but actually a grouping of different individual cells. Certainly your cells could be included within the concept of you, but when we are talking about your rights the only thing we can look at are the rights of the cells which the concept of "you" is used to describe. You exist as a concept, and don't exist in reality; only individual cells do." I'm having a hard time with that. I would tell them that their argument is not really an argument but actually a grouping of individual letters. Certainly the letters could be included within the concept of your argument, but when talking about the validity of your argument the only thing we can look at is the validity of the letters which the concept of "argument" is used to describe. Your argument exists as a concept and doesn't exist in reality, only individual letters do. Then give them the finger. If they complain about you giving them the finger then explain that it's not really the finger but actually a grouping of individual cells. Certainly the cells could be included within the concept of the finger, but ... After seeing the movie "I, Pencil" I'd heavily disagree with that statement. A society of people can make tons of stuff that no single individual could ever produce. So why wouldn't that count as an emergent property? I'd be careful with that. A necessary property of emergence is that the thing is irreducible. In principle a pencil could be made by a single person, it's just incredibly hard and humans have practical limitations. The pencil among other things is reducible and therefore not strictly emergent.
ThomasDoubts Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Some random thoughts: Pencil, self, hurricane describe particular emergent phenomenon. Society does not describe any particular arrangement or interaction, but rather every possible arrangement or interaction of humans. You cannot arrange wood, graphite, and rubber, in any manner and call it a pencil. You cannot arrange cells in any manner and call it human. You cannot arrange air molecules in any way and call it a hurricane. After seeing the movie "I, Pencil" I'd heavily disagree with that statement. A society of people can make tons of stuff that no single individual could ever produce. So why wouldn't that count as an emergent property? Because it is not an emergent property of society. Society is simply an requirement. If I lock ten people in my basement for 20 years, they form a society, but are incapable of producing a pencil. The self requires cells, but is not an emergent phenomenon of any group of cells. Rather, the self describes a very particular emergent phenomenon of a very particular arrangement of a group of cells. If I exist only as a concept of individual cells, I think it should hold that any group of cells arranged by the "rules" of the concept, should duplicate me. I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but I can' find it. How would you responed to this counter argument to society being a concept? "Kevin, you're not really Kevin but actually a grouping of different individual cells. Certainly your cells could be included within the concept of you, but when we are talking about your rights the only thing we can look at are the rights of the cells which the concept of "you" is used to describe. You exist as a concept, and don't exist in reality; only individual cells do." I'm having a hard time with that. If this were true, determinism seems the only rational consequence. Of course, this doesn't disprove anything, simply an observation. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and a prerequisite of free will.
Pepin Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 As already stated by someone else, this is the area of emergence, meaning that properties behaviors of the whole cannot be derived from the parts. For instance, consciousness is not a property found in any cell in our body, yet consciousness is a property of being human. Another good example is pain. Though this might be a tangent, I think it might help. A hard drive is essentially a metal disk where a head changes the direction of the magnetic field to inscribe data. The data does not exist in reality in any sense, the data is not a property of the molecules nor of the magnetic field, yet the data still fundamentally is real. In the same way, the ideas in your head, the letters you read now, and so much more is not found in reality yet still are real.
Fudo Manu Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 I may have backed myself into a corner then because I went down the path of concepts, not the other person. I was trying to argue that society doesn't have the right to enforce positive obligations because no individual has that right. They argueed that society does, and I went down the path that society doesn't exist and is only a concept. I'm afraid that if I say individual's have rights even though individual cells don't, they'll just say society has rights that individual persons don't. I'm at a loss.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I may have backed myself into a corner then because I went down the path of concepts, not the other person. I was trying to argue that society doesn't have the right to enforce positive obligations because no individual has that right. They argueed that society does, and I went down the path that society doesn't exist and is only a concept. I'm afraid that if I say individual's have rights even though individual cells don't, they'll just say society has rights that individual persons don't. I'm at a loss. Why are you afraid they'll say that?
Fudo Manu Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 Because I've invested alot of time and energy into this conversation and I feel like maybe what I thought was truth isn't.
TheRobin Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I may have backed myself into a corner then because I went down the path of concepts, not the other person. I was trying to argue that society doesn't have the right to enforce positive obligations because no individual has that right. They argueed that society does, and I went down the path that society doesn't exist and is only a concept. I'm afraid that if I say individual's have rights even though individual cells don't, they'll just say society has rights that individual persons don't. I'm at a loss. Well, as I see it the problem lies in that if society is the sum of all individuals of, say a specific area then society doesn't enforce anything, it's individuals, and those same individuals have rights. If someone'd argue that society has rights, but individuals don't, then they're basically saying many individuals have different rights than each one of those very same individuals, thus creating an individual that both has and doesn't have a right at the same time and in the same respect. Which is obviously a contradiction.Because in the end, the question is, "Does the guy with the gun have any right to force me to do something, despite me not having caused any harm?". If the answer is yes, then the question is, who gave him that right, if no single individual has it? (And if the answer is no, then, well, "Welcome to Anarchy!"
RestoringGuy Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Three scenarios: Siamese twins, human chimeras, people with split-brain condition. Answer one self or two.
aeonicentity Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 What you're really arguing is a definition of terms. This is a common mis-direction. Your conversation should be redirected by defining "society" as the statist construct that we live in. Humans live all the time , and create societies freely, except magically when taxation gets involved, god forbid you make your own NATION! You can make your own church, rotary club, or even school, but you certainly can't make a state! or a nation! While you may or may not be able to live without civilization, you certainly CAN live without the current state of affairs!
HasMat Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 to OP: identity is a metaphysical construct. self as a concept is pure fiction unless we have souls. either living matter disobeys causality or it does not. if not then life is just a self perpetuating event, a scientific process, as natural consequence of static nonlocalized laws, no voo-doo included. a fire or hurricane is not a self, a war is not a self. events arent selfs. life is an event. it has no physical existence. other things have the physical existence, the processes are just ways to group it or describe what is already occuring physically. as per the course of the thread, the idea selfhood is based on full realization of highest emergent properties is new to me. usually single cell organisms are considered to have identities and be selfs. it seems to me this definition would make big bang highest emergent self but certainly a human couple (male and female) a higher self than the individual, (and subcomponents thus surender selfhood) and either gender just a cog without identity, such as a blood cell you sell to blood bank without violating NAP. Using this definition it doesnt violate NAP to kill your wife. The self (couple) disposed of its resources of its own volition. emergent property is not the way to go. reproduction (requires couple) is certainly a salient emergent property, spawning a galaxy seems like a pretty cool trick too. puts new light on a tiny human shaking his fist at god for allowing disease to wipe out his family. sounds like a squabble between The Big Bang's stomache and its bladder. those silly organs, wont they just get along? those squabbles are MORALLY INERT, as the participants arent selfs. selfhood is arbitrary and meaningless without a soul. kill this idea. kill free-will. the problem is that free-will is essential to responsibility for your behavior, and thus duty to follow NAP. you need a soul for self-> you need a self for NAP-> you need a soul for NAP to apply to you. burn it down.
dsayers Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 A society on the other hand gains no emergent phenomena that is distinctly separate from it's individuals. Thank you so much for phrasing it in this manner. I fully understood the bunch of bananas analogy in Stef's Intro to Philosophy, but always had a hard time explaining it to others in a succinct manner. So many people willing to rally for violence against us all based on this fundamental misunderstanding of reality. After seeing the movie "I, Pencil" I'd heavily disagree with that statement. A society of people can make tons of stuff that no single individual could ever produce. So why wouldn't that count as an emergent property? The premise is false. Of course a single person could make a pencil. It would just be dramatically inefficient. That a couch feels half as heavy when twice as many people lift it is not emergent. Oh and curses to you for getting Rocking Robin stuck in my head every time I see your name
TheRobin Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I don't think the premise is false. I don't know how much goes into pencilmaking ofc, but only gathering the materials alone (including all the travelling and such), plus the machinery necessary to make them into something useful (machinery which you'd have to build yourself first, and gather the materials etc.) would take more time and energy taht you can have in a lifetime. Also knowing that you also need to produce your own food and clothing and shelter the whole time etc. I can imagine there might not be much left to do pencilgathering work.And the same with a couch. I can't lift my couch alone, but with another person helping we can lift it together, so there certainly are emergent properties that come from having mroe of the same (or another more obvious example would be atoms )I don't know who Rocking Robin is though (I'm from Switzerland, maybe that's why )
dsayers Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Ah good, then I get to stick it in your head http://youtu.be/PUKTgIK8DxA Hello from Ohio, USA. I'm ashamed at how often I take for granted how miraculous it truly is that from my couch, I can converse with somebody half the world away. Efficiency is analog, would you agree? Like in the couch example, a 2nd person might make it half as heavy to you. A 3rd person wouldn't necessarily be more efficient as the logistics of fitting a couch through a doorway with 3 people holding onto it can be problematic. Would you then say that "is optimally carried by 2 people" to be a property of "couch"? Can external factors even be properties of something? I think it would be erroneous to even say that "requires 2 people" is a property of "chess." You can analyze positions by yourself and you can get a computer to play it with you for example. I can't think of a single thing that one person couldn't do that many could, even if the act of doing so would be inefficient to the point of being described as prohibitive.
Recommended Posts